When government officials break U.S. law

[mmonk]

and treaties, and if other government officials don't attempt to prosecute, do the citizens have any legal remedies?

[bryant69]

1. Yeah

Vote the scoundrals out!

One could also pressure one's Representative and Senator to put pressure on removing appointed officials.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[gottaB]

2. torts?

If you have standing, there's civil court. There's also the Alien Tort Claims Act for foreign nationals.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/atca/intro.htm

:shrug:

good question

[seemslikeadream]

3. Santiago Declaration of 1991 We can start with this one

Santiago Declaration of 1991

Dodd
I will point out as well, if I can--and I know that international agreements are not always thought of as being terribly important in some people's minds. But in 1991, President Bush, the 41st President, along with other nations in this hemisphere, had signed the Santiago Declaration of 1991.



That declaration, authored by the Organization of American States, said that any nation, democratically elected in this hemisphere, that seeks the help of others when they are threatened with an overthrow should be able to get that support.


Rep. Maxine Waters Calls on Congress Not To Recognize New Haitian Governme


The new US-supported Haitian Prime Minister Gerard Latortue arrived in Washington Tuesday for his visit since the U.S. helped oust President Jean Bertand Aristide. Waters is calling on members of Congress not to recognize the new prime minister.

In February, Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide was removed from power in what he calls a modern kidnapping in the service of a coup d'etat backed by the United States.

Now, government officials have brought the new US-supported Prime Minister Gerard Latortue to Washington to meet with members of Congress, top Bush administration officials, international financial institutions and members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

This comes as Haiti descends even deeper into poverty and Aristide supporters are reportedly being killed in the streets.


http://www.pacifica.org/programs/dn/040505.html

HAITI COUP:INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS IN THE US AND HAITI

“The U.S. has been a strong supporter of all of these issues. So okay, where is this whole mechanism now? Why hasn’t it be into place? As far as I can tell, the only thing we have is the 15 CARICOM countries who have called for respect for democratically elected leaders and have not acknowledged the present unconstitutional government in Haiti and Venezuela.

“Where are the Brazilians? Where are the Argentineans? Where are the Mexicans? Where are all these other countries? Many which are led by people who it is hard to say are U.S. puppets. Where are they? Why haven’t these mechanisms been put into play in this case?”

Perhaps the silence is the result of economic blackmail – Internal Monetary Fund debt, European Union pressure, or U.S.-imposed sanctions are reason enough for these countries to turn a blind eye to the sovereign nation across the water.

“There is considerable information that the international banks, under orders from the United States, blocked aid to Aristide’s government. They said that they were doing this to leverage change after a ‘questionable’ 2000 election. The question arises, though, as to whether this is an appropriate source for leverage.”

http://www.sfbayview.com/040704/haiticoup040704.shtml


HAITI -- (Senate - March 04, 2004) Senator Leahy


HAITI -- (Senate - March 04, 2004)


---
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, over the past week, we have all watched the images of killings, chaos, and looting in Haiti. I am sad for the Haitian people. Once again, their leaders and the international community have failed them, and the poorest and the most vulnerable are enduring the greatest suffering.

I am also deeply disappointed with the Bush administration. Over the past several years, this administration ignored the simmering problems in Haiti and hoped they would somehow resolve themselves. That approach obviously backfired. Things have spiraled out of control. We now have a full-blown crisis on our hands, accusations that the administration helped to engineer a


coup of President Aristide, and the deployment of thousands of U.S. Marines into a difficult situation. Bringing change to Haiti will now be a far more dangerous and costly undertaking. Moreover, the U.N. or some other impartial organization will have to conduct an investigation to answer nagging questions about Aristide's departure.
I recognize that many administration officials did not support President Aristide. I can understand that view, as I also lost confidence in him. There is no question that serious allegations of corruption and abuse surround President Aristide and his associates and that these issues should have been dealt with. President Aristide and other Haitian leaders should be held accountable for their actions. Having said that, we should not forget the courage that President Aristide displayed when he first spoke out against the excesses of the brutal and corrupt dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier.

But this administration did not want to make the effort to help clean up the Haitian Government, build a reform-minded opposition, and restructure the economy.

Instead, the Bush administration simply disengaged. During his first year in office, President Bush reduced aid to Haiti by about 25 percent. Concerned with the growing problems in Haiti, Senator DODD and I sent a letter to USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios in February 2002, urging an overhaul of our foreign aid program to Haiti. The response to our letter was essentially: ``Thanks for writing. We have a limited budget, but we will remain `flexible' in our approach.'' The results of this flexible approach speak for themselves.

To be fair, USAID was under heady pressure to absorb activities that the State Department should have funded. USAID does not deserve the blame for an administration-wide policy failure.

During the last month, United States policy toward Haiti crystallized around the goal of getting rid of President Aristide. For all the administration's tough talk aimed at President Aristide, this White House has embraced corrupt leaders with far less democratic credentials than President Aristide when it has suited its purpose. This episode is yet another reminder of how the contradictory policies and rhetoric of this administration are damaging U.S. credibility around the world.

In some respects, President Aristide's departure begins a new chapter for Haiti. In other ways, it is not clear just how new it is. For the third time in 20 years, a Haitian leader has been forced into exile, and at least for the third time in 90 years, the U.S. military has intervened in Haiti.

What is to show for years of interventions and hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. assistance? Haiti remains one of the poorest and most corrupt countries on Earth, facing a myriad of complex problems. Removing President Aristide will not solve these entrenched problems, but it may provide a way forward.

The United States has compelling reasons to help. Haiti is just a few hundred miles away from our shores, and the social turmoil there could easily spread to the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas, and elsewhere in our neighborhood. The United States has a long relationship with Haiti and many Haitian Americans live in the United States. Perhaps most importantly, we have a moral responsibility to help a nation where so many have been suffering for so long.

The United States, France, and others must work with the United Nations, the Organization of American States to help fill the power vacuum in Port-au-Prince. The international community must also come up with a substantial aid package to help the Haitian people get back on their feet.

This will be a long, slow process. If we are to succeed in meeting the challenge of recovery and rebuilding in Haiti, the United States and the international community must stay engaged. Most of all, the Haitians themselves must take responsibility, especially the religious and political leaders. But we must take care not to overlook a key group that must be involved in this process--middle-class Haitians who have left the country over the past few decades.

As Garry Pierre-Pierre, editor in chief of the Haitian Times, points out in Monday's Wall Street Journal, involving Haiti's middle class is essential. He writes:


The international community has to bring the country's middle class not merely to the table, but back to Haiti. This middle class has been fleeing Haiti for the U.S., where it has consolidated itself, for the last 30 years. We should look to that group, the Haitian diaspora, educated at the best schools in the U.S. and Canada, to help lead the country out of its perpetual cycle of violence and misery.


I agree with Mr. Pierre-Pierre, and believe that the administration should heed his advice.

We have missed one opportunity after another in Haiti. It is time for us to make the most of this unfortunate situation.

I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:


U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, February 15, 2002.
Hon. ANDREW NATSIOS,
Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. NATSIOS: We are deeply concerned with the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Haiti. The political impasse between the Haitian Government and the political opposition has only made a serious situation more dire. As a matter of U.S. policy Haiti is being denied access to monies from the multilateral development banks until the government and opposition resolve their differences. For that reason, the humanitarian needs of Haiti must be met solely from bilateral donations through non-governmental organizations such as CARE, Catholic Relief Services and World Vision.

Violence, poverty, and disease are rampant throughout Haiti. Since the United States is opposing access for Haiti to multilateral monies to address these problems, we believe the U.S. has a moral obligation to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible, that U.S. bilateral humanitarian assistance allocations be maintained at adequate levels. However, that does not appear to be the case. As you know annual USAID/Haiti allocations have been cut in half since FY1999 to $50 million for the current fiscal year. Moreover, the Administration's FY 2003 request is only $45 million. At these levels we are very skeptical that USAID will be able to continue many critical programs, including school feeding programs, public health programs for Haitian children ages 0 to 5, and AIDS treatment and prevention programs.

We strongly urge you to review the overall FY 2003 USAID budget to determine whether additional funds can be found for USAID FY 2003 programs in Haiti. Moreover, we do not support efforts to obligate FY 2002 Haiti monies for purposes other than humanitarian assistance programs.

Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We look forward to working with you in addressing the humanitarian needs of Haiti's seven million people.

Sincerely yours,



Patrick J. Leahy,


Christopher J. Dodd,


U.S. Senators.
--
U.S. AGENCY FOR

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,

Washington, DC, April 2, 2002.
Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR LEAHY: Mr. Natsios has asked me to respond to your letter of February 15, 2002, concerning the current situation in Haiti and declining U.S. assistance levels. We regret the delay in responding.

We share your concern about deteriorating conditions in Haiti, and are doing our best to help ease the situation within the constraints of current budget realities. Since September 11, 2001, worldwide pressures on overall resources limit our ability to maintain prior year levels for Haiti. We have made up most of the difference using Development Assistance and the Child Survival and Health Programs fund; however, these accounts are heavily subscribed.

Our programs will continue to have a meaningful impact in Haiti through the provision of primarily humanitarian assistance. Approximately 80 percent of the FY 2002 budget and FY 2003 request will go toward health, food aid, and education activities. These programs will still provide health and family planning services to approximately 2.7 million Haitians--mostly women and children--including HIV/AIDS prevention. They will also target food resources in Haiti to children under five and pregnant/lactating women, and will continue to make marked improvements in math and reading achievement test scores for 150,000 Haitian children.

In closing, we are watching the situation very closely and remain flexible on funding options for FY 2002. We welcome a continuing dialogue with Congress on appropriate assistance levels for Haiti as events unfold.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Please let us know when this office can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
J. EDWARD FOX,

Assistant Administrator,
Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r108:./temp/~r108SF8WqA

Senator Chris Dodd's statement on Haiti


I cite those international agreements because we think of our Nation as being a nation of laws, not of men. These agreements either meant something or they didn't.

The Santiago Declaration and the Inter-American Charter on Democracy, apparently both documents mean little or nothing when it comes to supporting democratically elected governments in this hemisphere--not ones that you necessarily like or agree with or find everything they do is in your interest, but we do adhere to the notion that democratically elected governments are what we support in this hemisphere.




HAITI -- (Senate - March 02, 2004)


GPO's PDF
---
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to address, if I may, the subject matter of Haiti and the events that have occurred there over the last several days, now going back a week or more, in that country, that beleaguered nation only a few hundred miles off the southern coast of Florida.

On Sunday morning, as we now all know, the democratically elected government, the President of Haiti, was forced out of office. The armed insurrection, led by former members of the disbanded Haitian Army, and its paramilitary wing called FRAPH, made it impossible for the Aristide government to maintain public order, without assistance from the international community--international assistance that was consciously withheld, in my view.

President Aristide left Haiti on Sunday morning aboard an American aircraft. President Aristide reportedly has

GPO's PDF
gone into exile in the Central African Republic, where I am now being told he is not allowed to communicate with others outside of that country.
Members of the Black Caucus of the other body, and others who had an opportunity to speak with President Aristide yesterday, have publicly restated his claim that he was forcibly removed from Haiti by U.S. officials.

I quickly point out that Secretary of State Colin Powell and others have emphatically denied that charge. Such an allegation, if true, is extremely troubling and would be a gross violation of the laws of the U.S. and international law. Only time will tell. I presume there will be a thorough investigation to determine exactly what occurred from late Saturday night and early Sunday morning, regarding the departure and ouster of the President of Haiti, President Aristide.

Over the coming days, I believe an effort should be made to reconstruct what happened in the final 24 or 48 hours leading up to President Aristide's departure so we can resolve questions of the U.S. participation in the ouster of a democratically elected leader in this hemisphere.

Let's be clear that whether U.S. officials forcibly removed Aristide from Haiti, as he has charged, or he left voluntarily, as Secretary of Powell and others have stated, it is indisputable, based on everything we know, that the U.S. played a very direct and public role in pressuring him to leave office by making it clear that the United States would do nothing to protect him from the armed thugs who are threatening to kill him. His choice was simple: Stay in Haiti with no protection from the international community, including the U.S., and be killed or you can leave the country. That is hardly what I would call a voluntary decision to leave.

I will point out as well, if I can--and I know that international agreements are not always thought of as being terribly important in some people's minds. But in 1991, President Bush, the 41st President, along with other nations in this hemisphere, had signed the Santiago Declaration of 1991. That declaration, authored by the Organization of American States, said that any nation, democratically elected in this hemisphere, that seeks the help of others when they are threatened with an overthrow should be able to get that support.

Ten years later, the Inter-American Charter on Democracy was signed into law, a far more comprehensive proposal, again authored by the Organization of American States, the U.S. supporting. The present President Bush and our administration supported that. That charter on democracy stated that when asked for help by a democratically elected government being threatened with overthrow, we should respond.

President Aristide, a democratically elected President made that request and, of course, not only did we not provide assistance, in fact we sat back and watched as he left the country, offering assistance for him to depart.

I cite those international agreements because we think of our Nation as being a nation of laws, not of men. These agreements either meant something or they didn't. The Santiago Declaration and the Inter-American Charter on Democracy, apparently both documents mean little or nothing when it comes to supporting democratically elected governments in this hemisphere--not ones that you necessarily like or agree with or find everything they do is in your interest, but we do adhere to the notion that democratically elected governments are what we support in this hemisphere.

When they are challenged by violent thugs, people with records of violent human rights violations, engaged in death squad activity, in the very country they are now moving back

into and threatened, of course, successfully the elected government of President Aristide, then I think it is worthy of note that we have walked away from these international documents signed only 3 years ago and 10 years ago.

There is no doubt, I add, that President Aristide has made significant mistakes during his 3 years in office--these last 3 years. He allowed his supporters to use violence as a means of controlling a growing opposition movement against his government. The Haitian police were ill trained and ill equipped to maintain public order in the face of violent demonstrations by progovernment and antigovernment activists. Poverty, desperation, and opportunism led to wide government corruption.

President Aristide, in my view, must assume responsibility for these things. But did the cumulative effect of these failures amount to a decision that we thought we could no longer support this democratically elected government? If that becomes the standard in this hemisphere, we are going to find ourselves sitting by and watching one democratically elected government after another fall to those that breed chaos and remove governments with which they don't agree. They are being told by the Bush administration now that the Haitian Government was a government of failed leadership. That is a whole new standard when it comes to engaging in the kind of activity we have seen over the last several days.

Having been critical of President Aristide, I point out that he was elected twice overwhelmingly in his country. He was thrown out of office in a coup in the early 1990s. Through the efforts of the U.S. Government and others, he was brought back to power in Haiti. Then he gave up power when the government of President Preval was elected. During those 4 years, President Aristide supported that transitional government. He ran again himself, as the Haitian Constitution allowed, and was elected overwhelmingly again, despite the fact the opposition posed little or no efforts to stand against him.

There was a very bad election that occurred in the spring of 2000, in which eight members of the Haitian Senate were elected by fraud. Those Senators were removed from office. Six months later, President Aristide was elected overwhelmingly again. It is the first time I know of in the 200-year history of Haiti as an independent nation where a President turned over power transitionally peacefully to another democratically elected government. Whatever other complaints there are--and they are not illegitimate about the Aristide government--there was a peaceful transition of democratically elected governments in Haiti. That never, ever happened before. What has happened there repeatedly is one coup after another--33 over the 200-year history of that nation.

Whatever shortcomings they may have had, President Aristide provided for the first time in Haiti's history a democratically elected government transitioning power to other people peacefully. I will also point out that he abolished the military and the army, an institution that did nothing but drain the feeble economy of Haiti of necessary resources.

Haiti did not have a need for an army. There were no threats to Haiti. In retrospect, he may regret that. But the army, in my view, was a waste of money in Haiti, served no legitimate purpose, and President Aristide should be

commended for abolishing an institution that had been the source of constant corruption and difficulty on that nation.

Blame for the chaos does not rest solely on the shoulders of President Aristide. The so-called democratic opposition bears a share of the responsibility for the death and destruction that has wreaked havoc throughout Haiti over the past several weeks.

The members of CARICOM, with U.S. backing, put on the table a plan calling for the establishment of a unity government to defuse the political crisis. The opposition rejected this proposal on three different occasions, despite the fact that President Aristide said he was willing to have a government of unity, to give up power, to share governmental functions with the opposition. The opposition said no on three different occasions, despite the fact that the nations of the Caribbean region urged the opposition to avoid the kind of transition that we have seen over the last several days.

A hundred or more Haitians already have lost their lives. Property damage may be in the millions. Given the direct role the U.S. played in the removal of the Aristide government, it is now President Bush's responsibility, in my view, and moral obligation to take charge of this situation. That means more than sending a couple hundred marines for 90 days or so into Haiti. Rather, it means a sustained commitment of personnel and resources for the

GPO's PDF
foreseeable future by the U.S. and other members of the international community that called for the removal of the elected government.
If the Bush administration and others inside and outside of Haiti had been at all concerned over the last 3 weeks about the fate of the Haitian people, perhaps the situation would not have deteriorated into near anarchy, nor would the obligation of the U.S. to clean up this mess now loom so large.

We are now reaping what we have sown. Three years of a hands-off policy left Haiti unstable, with a power vacuum that will be filled in one way or another. Will that vacuum be filled by individuals such as Guy Philippe, a former member of the disbanded Haitian Army, a notorious human rights abuser and drug trafficker, or is the administration prepared to take action against him and his followers, based upon a long record of criminal behavior?

It is rather amazing to this Senator that the administration has said little or nothing about its plans for cracking down on the armed thugs who have terrorized Haiti since February 5.

Only with careful attention by the United States and the international community does Haiti have a fighting chance to break from its tragic history. In the best of circumstances, it is never easy to build and nurture democratic institutions where they are weak and nonexistent. When ignorance, intolerance, and poverty are part of the very fabric of a nation, as is the case in Haiti, it is Herculean.

Given the mentality of the political elites in Haiti--one of winner take all--I, frankly, believe it is going to be extremely difficult to form a unity government that has any likelihood of being able to govern for any period of time without resorting to repressive measures against those who have been excluded from the process.

It brings me no pleasure to say at this juncture that Haiti is failing, if not a failed state. The United Nations Security Council has authorized the deployment of peacekeepers to Haiti to stabilize the situation. I would go a step further and urge the Haitian authorities to consider sharing authority with an international administration authorized by the United Nations in order to create the conditions necessary to give any future Government of Haiti a fighting chance at succeeding. The United States must lead in this multinational initiative, as Australia did, I might point out, in the case of East Timor; not as Secretary Defense Rumsfeld suggested yesterday: Wait for someone else to step up to the plate to take the lead. It will require substantial, sustained commitment of resources by the United States and the international community if we are to be successful.

The jury is out as to whether the Bush administration is prepared to remain engaged in Haiti. Only in the eleventh hour did Secretary of State Colin Powell focus his attention on Haiti as he personally organized the pressure which led to President Aristide's resignation on Sunday. Unless Secretary Powell is equally committed to remaining engaged in the rebuilding of that country, then I see little likelihood that anything is going to change for the Haitian people. The coming days and weeks will tell whether the Bush administration is as concerned about strengthening and supporting democracy in our own hemisphere as it claims to be in other more distant places around the globe. The people of this hemisphere are watching and waiting.

I yield the floor
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:17:./temp/~r108iX7d5G ::

[mmonk]

4. So there are no real legal remedies

to protect the citizens of our country either set in precedence, codified law, or our constitution? That is truely depressing.